In previous reviews, we have already seen the importance of inheritance law and land titling on development outcomes. Swinnen, Van Herck and Vranken's paper "The Diversity of Land Institutions in Europe" looks at land institutions related to farming in EU context and shows both the large diversity within a single market and how policy decisions can have large effects in relatively short periods of time.
Abstract:
"The creation of optimal land institutions attracted
renewed attention in the 1990s because of its central role in the
transition process in former Communist countries in the former Soviet
Union and Eastern Europe and more recently because of large-scale land
investments in developing countries. This paper documents the existence
of large variations in land institutions (markets and regulation) using
current and historical data from Western and Eastern Europe. It then
offers explanations for these differences and draws implications for the
role and optimality of land institutions in development (with special
reference to the current debate on large scale land acquisitions)"
It is interesting to see how much diversity there is among EU countries, both within the EU15 and former communist, specially in a setting where there is not only a common market but also a Common Agricultural Policy (CAP). These differences not only point at history but also to more recent policy decisions in land restitution (former communist), rental environment, and farmland regulatory framework. While the study does look at land institutions per se, it is a pity there has not been a deeper look at the impact of the CAP on those institutions, aside from a passing mention in the case of Greece (the requirement of rental agreements have led to an increase in formalization).
This also shows that there are many paths to a functional agricultural land market and that both institutional design and political/policy considerations loom large. Land reform is still in the agenda of many developing countries, although not as much in its traditional shape (social justice) and rather as economic (mostly export led) growth argument. The acceptance of multiple pathways with endogenous development within a common external framework reinforces the point that 'cookie cutter' policy proposals by external actors are a misrepresentation of the policy options at hand
Interesting to note that one of the largest countries both in farmland and agricultural production within the EU, Spain, is not part of the analysis. The authors do not give an explanation so we are left guessing. Selection bias? quality of data?
